4.5 Review

Sex differences in vancomycin-resistant enterococci bloodstream infections-a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BIOLOGY OF SEX DIFFERENCES
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13293-021-00380-5

关键词

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci; VRE; Bloodstream infection; Bacteremia; epidemiology; Sex differences

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current literature suggests a male preference (59%) in the distribution of VRE BSI cases. Further primary studies should address the question of male-specific factors favoring the enhanced frequency of VRE BSI.
Background Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) have emerged in the healthcare setting worldwide. Infections with these pathogens, i.e., bloodstream infections (BSI), are accompanied with an impaired patient outcome. Diverse factors comprising patient characteristics, therapeutic strategies, and infection control measures are positively or negatively associated with VRE BSI occurrence. However, whether sex-specific differences influence the frequency of VRE BSI is yet unknown. The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively summarize and analyze sex prevalence in VRE BSI patients. Main text A systematic search for relevant articles was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science. After screening for eligibility, data extraction from included articles and risk of bias assessment were processed. The prevalence of male/female sex in VRE BSI patients and 95% CI were calculated for each study and summarized as pooled estimated effect. In total, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment resulted in low (six studies) to moderate bias (three studies). The pooled prevalence of male patients suffering from VRE BSI was 59% resulting in a 1.4 male/female prevalence ratio. Conclusions Current literature suggests sex differences with male preference (59%) in the distribution of VRE BSI cases. Further primary studies should address the question of male-specific factors favoring the enhanced frequency of VRE BSI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据